Sexist Car insurance

iceman_2

OK, so it seems it's acceptable for car insurance to discriminate against anyone (with the exception of disabled people). Can we therefore start discriminating against chavs as this should lower my quote considerably. All we need is an extra question in the application along the lines of "do you regularly wear a baseball cap?"

Astaroth

Differentiate not discriminate.

If you can think of a way of identify chavs and evidence that they are a worse claims risk then I will certainly speak to our director of underwriting re our rates. Majority however are already picked up by the combination of age, location, vehicle and modifications I imagine.

There are many rating factors that would be great to introduce but unfortunately you simply rely on customer honesty in saying, for example, if they put makeup on whilst driving or not (a worrying number of people do - wont say women in case that is discriminatory) with no way of testing if they are telling the truth or not.

iceman_2

discriminate

verb {I}

to treat a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, religion, sex.


Please tell me in what way charging men more for car insurance DOESN'T meet that definition perfectly.

impy78

iceman wrote:

OK, how long do you think this would last if a insurance company called "grandads wheels" was started with adverts saying granny sheila can't drive safely? I imagine it's only allowed cos no-one knows about it and its not publicised.

See the point..but as drivers over 65 are considered to be a high risk amongst insurers, I don't know how viable this would be for either gender.

iceman_2

impy78 wrote:

See the point..but as drivers over 65 are considered to be a high risk amongst insurers, I don't know how viable this would be for either gender.

i wasn't actually suggesting it as a business proposition, i was merely saying that if such a company were started it would very quickly be branded horribly sexist and stopped by the courts/govt.

C_Ronaldo

brazilianwax wrote:

It's car insurance for women, and yes they can. Women are safer drivers and they are targetting them. They don't mind fellas being on the policy, but the main driver must be female.

There are plenty of other insurance companies that will insure men.

They won't insure drivers over 69 either.........

not ALL women are safer drivers, theres alot of women drivers who act like their male counterparts,

lisyloo

not ALL women are safer drivers, theres alot of women drivers who act like their male counterparts

I agree but we have already discussed many times that it would be prohibitively expensive to tailor an individual quote for everyone.

I don't work in the industry but my very broad estimate would be 3 hours at £50 per hour for an underwriter/actuary to do an individual estimate.
So £150 per person (double that if you are a couple).
Perhaps that's even too low given the amount of training you need to become an actuary.

The system is "broad brush" and works on rules.
Some people lose, some people gain but everyone gains by not paying £150 for the assesment of an individual quote.

None of us are at liberty to tell businesses how to run their business model.
If you don't like it then start up your own company.
The people that have massive experience in this industry have already indicated that any such attempts would probably make you uncompetitve and doomed to failure.

Personally I would rather have a quote that overcharged me £50 because it was "unfair" rather than one that was completely fair but cost an extra £300 for someone for asses the individual driving risks associated with myself and my husband.
So my vote is for an "unfair" system EVEN if I get charged little ore because it is massively LESS than a "fair" system.
To take it to extremes any completely fair system would need a comprehensive assesment of your driving skills and attitudes, the medication you take, your drinking habits, drug habits etc. etc.

BTW - If you think you are a good risk, then get the legal minimum 3rd party insurance and self-insure for the rest. That's what I do.

Astaroth

iceman wrote:

discriminate

verb {I}

to treat a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, religion, sex.


Please tell me in what way charging men more for car insurance DOESN'T meet that definition perfectly.

As ever there are different definitions depending on where you look.... by your quoted definition then age is not discrimination. The definition in my dictionary is a prejudicial differentiation - ie based on opinion rather than evidence.

At the end of the day it is semantics and we are getting into circular arguments now. If you feel that strongly about it then take lisyloo's advice and set up your own company and if you need a Strategy & Projects Manager then you can always pm me

SO171NOT

lisyloo wrote:

BTW - If you think you are a good risk, then get the legal minimum 3rd party insurance and self-insure for the rest. That's what I do.

How do you do that?!

Astaroth

Do exactly the same as an insurance company does.... pay what you have to (in your case it would be RTA insurance, or more likely Third Party Only) and invest the rest of the money (ISA, savings account, shares etc). You then hope that the money you put away plus its earned income is sufficient to cover any losses that you sustain. Once you have enough money saved to buy a brand new car any other money and interest/ dividends is your profit